Maine media sources seem to have some kind of attraction right now with the hybrid wild canine inhabiting the Maine woods. They like to call it a hybrid, I suppose because in their minds, lacking any real scientific knowledge of anything, a wild canine sounds more authentic or maybe even worthy of man’s affections and protections. Would the event be worthy if it involved a mutt or a mongrel?

Technically, it’s really nothing but a cross breed of dog – canine. It’s also a travesty that did not need to happen, could be mitigated, but won’t be due to perverse and ignorant notions about animals.

An article that ran in the Portland Press Herald recently rightfully stated that the “coyotes” that are found in Maine, are not native. This is true. They are an invasive dog that has a mixture of genetics; some breed of wolf, some breed of coyotes, some breeds of wild dogs and some breeds of domestic dogs. In short they are a nasty nuisance. However nobody wants to discuss the realities of the disease-carrying creature, a creature that is a threat to so many things, including a threat to the actual species of wolves and coyotes. Some claim they are protecting every living canine, wild, semi-wild or domestic by letting them grow out of control. They know not what they do.

But I’ve written about this so much that the ends of my fingers are worn to stubs.

What I intended to point out is what is written in this article. The author shares comments from a leading researcher of coyote DNA at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. The researcher explains how he thinks the “hybrid” canines got to Maine and much of the East Coast. He is quoted as saying, “Genetic evidence suggests it happened when the wolf population in the Great Lakes was at its lowest point when they were heavily persecuted. So basically some wolf female came into heat and couldn’t find a wolf so bred with the next best thing: a coyote.”

Genetic evidence doesn’t suggest anything. Genetic evidence tells us what the DNA composition is of the wild canines found in the East. How they arrived there is the suggestion of people like this researcher.

If you were to take the time and approach the above statement without bias, fed to us by ignorant media echo chambers, one can quickly see how this researcher approaches his research and forms his “evidence suggests” statements.

He says when the Great Lakes wolf population was at its lowest point (he doesn’t tell us when that was or how that lowest point compares to any other time period, but is very quick to simply state “when they were heavily persecuted”) a female wolf came into heat and the nearest solution happened to be a Western coyote.

Consider the obvious. If the population of wolves in the Great Lakes was at its lowest, unless there is proof that the reduction was something other than an equal reduction of both male and female wolves, the idea that there wasn’t enough male wolves to go around to breed all the females that came into heat, is dishonest at the very best.

As any honest person who knows a lick about dogs, wild or domestic, when any bitch comes into heat, any male dog within nose shot is hot on the track. No dog looks over his possible mating partner to determine whether it is wild or domestic and of what “species” or “breed” it might be. It doesn’t work that way. It really wouldn’t matter whether wolves in the Great Lakes were at the “lowest point” or highest point, if a female wolf comes into heat whoever gets there first gets first dibs.

It appears that the researcher is very quick to blame the cross-breeding on the “heavily persecuted” reduction of wolves. Are we correct to assume that the researcher sees that wolf persecution as being that of man?

What he fails to point out, and probably never will because it may be uncomfortable to speak of as it might pertain to his narrative of wild canine protection, is to ask or point out why the “WESTERN” coyotes had taken up residence or where simply passing through the Great Lakes, as seems to be the conclusion a reader might make.

Even in the writings of Teddy Roosevelt as he traveled the West, hunting and recording his observations of wildlife, he noted that the wild canines he encountered essentially remained separated geographically because, comparatively, there weren’t that many of them. It is believed that all dogs, wild and domestic of today, originated from one species of dog. The rest are more or less mutations and more cross breeding by man, i.e. hybridizing.

When any wild canine species’ or subspecies’ population gets too large – in other words when things get crowded and the habitat will not support more coyotes – they disperse. The dispersing coyotes are generally the males. During this dispersal, they seek territory and a mate. If during that dispersal, the male catches wind of any canine in heat, action begins. So, what happens when man practices to protect every wild canine that exists? Simple, there is more dispersal, driving coyotes and wolves further and further from their points of origin, forcing more and more cross breeding. And we end up with more and more mongrels.

If, as the researcher points out, “some wolf female came into heat” and “bred with a coyote,” the other side of the coin that perhaps the researcher does not want to examine, is that it happened because of too many coyotes. That fact is what caused the dispersal of the coyote to cross paths with the female wolf. It is also possible that a female coyote got bred with a male wolf. This most often occurs with crossing over of territories between wolves and coyotes.

If it is the intention of people to protect the wolf (that is the genetically distinct wolf) then the worse thing that we can do is to insist on protecting those wolves in human-settled landscapes where those wolves have just about a zero percent chance of ever maintaining its genetic makeup. As I pointed out, when any female canine comes into heat, any male canine would be happy to solve the problem. Genetics are ruined. It’s all senseless.

As this phenomenon continues, perpetuated by man’s insistence that wolves and coyotes of any breed or mixture be forced onto the landscapes also occupied by man, there will and is nothing left by a mongrel wild or semi-wild dog spreading disease, killing our pets and livestock and destroying the ecosystems that man has spent hundreds of million dollars to be what might benefit the most of us.

So, please! The next time you read that someone said, “genetics suggest,” just remember that genetics is a science that can only tell a scientist what is the DNA makeup of any living object. That makeup doesn’t “suggest” anything. Only a man can suggest things and in this case, one man is suggesting how a coyote in the West became a mixed breed of wild canine in Maine by breeding with a female wolf in the Great Lakes region that was part of a diminished wolf population due to “persecution.” He might “suggest” that event but could never prove that’s what happened.

Now that Roxanne Quimby got her land designated as a national monument, the push is now on to turn the rest of northwestern Maine into useless, inaccessible wasteland some like to call “wilderness.”

As part of this push for locking up land, comes the ignorant belief that wolves are a magic formula needed to carry out the false theory that “Nature” balances itself. Unfortunately we will never get rid of that lie because it became a very powerful tool when it was criminally used to introduce wolves into the Greater Yellowstone area, for personal and monetary gain. Even since the man who invented the false claim has rescinded his theory, the echo chambers of the media, along with environmental useful idiots, continue to perpetuate the fantasy because they want to and need to. It’s that simple.

However, aside from all of this banter about whether or not wolves walk on water and whether or not land should be locked up and called wilderness, there can be serious argument made that in the Lower 48 States, there does not exist a “pure” wolf or a coyote for that matter.

In an article found in the Bangor Daily News, it begins, “WSCH 6’s Bill Green reported this week that a new wolf-coyote hybrid “thrives” in Maine.”

If this is true, and there exists studies that tell us that the wild dogs found in most of the northeast section of country are of a mixed breed of wolf, coyote and domestic dog and any and all canine breeds and mixtures. One would imagine that that mixture is all over the place as, by now, cross-bred wild dogs have mated with other cross-bred wild dogs, and so it goes.

Do these wild dogs “thrive” in Maine, as Bill Green states? Reports vary, some stating that Maine has a “coyote” (hybrid) population in excess of 20,000. Thriving? It would seem that way to me, especially when you consider that it was only in my childhood days – 1960s – that rumors were spreading about “coyotes” showing up in places in the Pine Tree State. Maine never had a viable population of “coyotes” until it began to grow in the 1960s, due to expansion of populations – probably already some kind of add-mixture of wild dog.

Some claim this cross-breeding (media and others like to call the offspring a hybrid) is a natural phenomenon but is it?

Also found in this article is the following statement: “When Europeans began to colonize the United States, wolves were abundant throughout the country.” What does that mean precisely? What is the term “abundant” one’s weighted perception? It appears Bill Green and I “perceive” that a mixed-breed of wild dog “thrives” in Maine. Those who see any dog, wild or domestic, in vast quantities, as something that should be perpetuated, wouldn’t see 20,000 coyotes/cross-breeds as thriving or abundant. But, what about science….real science?

Most certain, the settlers who came before us, learned quickly that large predators in the woods were dangerous and competed with them for, not only their livestock, but for other wild game that was necessary for survival. And thus they killed these wild predators whenever they could. Shouldn’t they have?

But were these wolves “abundant” when the settlers arrived? Bearing in mind the term “abundant,” perhaps the best way to learn about this is to recall the historic accounts, often found in hunters’ and trappers’ journals, including such recordings as those of Lewis and Clark, and names such as Smith, Ogden, Sublette, Work, Meek, Freemont, Preuss, Simpson and Egan. After all, they were the ones on the land even before the settlers.

Most of their journals tell a quite different story of “abundance.” With the exception of some localized areas, west of the Mississippi, both game and wolves were scarce. Explorers, through what is now the Yellowstone Basin, comment that they never heard wolves or coyotes howl. There was little game to be found, and often these explorers, unable to find game to sustain themselves, resorted to killing and eating horse meat. Lewis and Clark experienced the same thing finding themselves trading with the Indians for their domestic dogs to eat in order to survive. From my perspective, that does not describe what I would call an abundance of anything, except perhaps hunger.

Science shows us that natural segregation, often achieved through natural landscape barriers, and population limits found in widespread outbreaks of disease, kept species like wild canines apart in order that cross-breeding was not a common thing. We have learned that the Native Americans knew about wolves and the trouble they caused. Not all Indians worshiped the wolf or found some kind of spiritual guidance or direction from them. The natives deliberately cross-bred certain domesticated dogs with wild dogs in hopes of creating a better hunting animal.

Teddy Roosevelt wrote extensively of his travels, often describing the different looks and sizes of wild dogs he encountered. Roosevelt was one of the first to write about the big “timber wolves” that seemed to exist only beyond the high mountains of what is now known as the Sasquatch Range. What coyotes there were, existed down on the plains.

Common sense should tell us that if we are interested in protecting a wolf or a coyote, we should be doing our best to insure that the two species are not forced into the same habitats where cross-breeding would become even more common, thus mixing the species and destroying the wolf or coyote genes. People, often in their greed and animal perversions, insist on seeing these animals from their cars and out the back windows of their houses. This is a great formula for the destruction of, not only wolves and coyotes, but many other species due to predation and disease.

Granted this effort of segregation becomes a more difficult task with a growing population of man, but protecting the populations of wild wolves and coyotes to numbers that are historically higher than when the settlers first arrived, thinking we are doing great things for the animals, is all wrong.

Even many who would concur that there are “hybrid” wild dogs living throughout Maine and other areas of the country, seem to only care about protecting whatever the cross-bred creature is that exists for the moment. Our own U.S. Government seems to share that same belief.

In attempts to perpetuate wild dogs in the Desert Southwest and in the Southeast, government agents knowingly and illegally introduced real hybrid semi-wild dogs. This is not only illegal but a violation of the Endangered Species Act. What are we doing?

If Maine and other regions are now dealing with “thriving” populations of hybrid wild dogs, there’s a reason for that. The worst thing we can do is perpetuate this cross-breed. If we want to protect the wolf and the coyote, we should be doing all we can to rid the landscape of these hybrid, invasive species. Not only do the genes of wild canines become mixed up, but what also changes with the cross-mixture is behavior – behavior that is most often unpredictable. This adds to the issue of public safety.

To argue that Maine should have wolves is one thing. To make the claim that what the Government and others who are suggesting introduction is actually a pure wolf is foolishness. Perhaps the only wolf that resembles a pure wolf exists in the wilderness regions far to our north, where they belong. These are not indigenous to Maine. Introduction of such a beast, or any kind of add-mixture, semi-wild dogs, calling them wolves, is a violation of the law and should not be tolerated…that is if we actually care about protecting real wolves.

*Note* – I provided few links in this writing. I have written extensively on this subject, including a book. You can use the search function of this website to find more information about most everything I have written in this article.

I was reading this morning of how a Maine legislator had proposed a seat belt law for dogs in passenger cars. The snowflake who proposed the law said he did it at the request of a constituent and removed the proposal at the request of the constituent…WINK-WINK!

Evidently there were two basic reasons for thinking of something so stupid. One was, of course, for the protection of the animal. Big deal. The second was to prohibit dogs from sitting on the laps of drivers as they cruise down the highway at 95 miles an hour, or attempt to manipulate around city traffic when the drivers are so inept at driving they can’t do it safely without a dog sitting on their lap. Perhaps the dog is a better driver. I know they are smarter.

But consider the truth in the matter. Dogs are but an animal…never intended to be as a person, living with a person and doing all person things – let me repeat that – doing all person things. Certainly dogs are not an endangered species. As a matter of fact, 99% of them should be killed and clean up the stinking, rotten messes they leave behind, along with their diseases. So, certainly we don’t need to protect the dogs.

On the other hand, there are the creatures that would choose to have a dog in their car and sitting on their lap. Aside from the risk involved with innocent people being caught up in the dog perversion of an owner not capable of separation anxiety by leaving the nasty thing home, let the dog and owner crash and burn. The man species is in danger of breeding itself into oblivion.

Cruel? Yes, but perhaps – but I doubt it – people might begin to understand how sick and perverted they are when it comes to their pets. Naw! What am I thinking. All they will think is how terrible I am to suggest such a thing and that I die from a million dog bites.

I was sent a series of 7 photographs under the heading of “Swimming Wolf.” I will not show all 7 pictures. I will show two of the originals – a canine creature swimming a body of water, and the same canine after it got across to the land and was headed in a direction that took it across what appears to be a road.

The last photo was returned to everyone included on the original email list, with graphics showing differences between a wolf track and those of a dog.

If you follow this link to Wolf Education International, you’ll find an article written in both German and English with links to photos and graphics with details about how to determine, from a well-defined track, the differences between the track of a wolf, the track of a hybrid/crossbreed, and the track of a dog.

The real crime here is that we either a clueless as to what kind of animals we are protecting, or those perpetuating this act know exactly what they are doing and are doing it for political or other reasons. Either way, none of it is actually saving or protecting the actual wolf.

It appears most simply want wild dogs and then in their wee bit of a mind they can believe they are one with “wolves.”

*Editor’s Note* – I picked the below “teaser” to prove just one point about the utter nonsense of what is written in the article linked to. First, tell me that a dog can be “trained” to lay in an MRI machine for 7 minutes, without moving, and listen to their “master” say words to them in order to measure brain waves. Okay. But the real kicker here is that this study, “has not been analyzed this way elsewhere.” New Science Scientism. They took John Kerry’s and the Aspen Institute’s advice and “created new knowledge.”

This B.S. is nothing more than a perpetuation of a sickness, inflicting Americans mostly, of animal perversion – the notion that animals have rights and should be treated equal to, or better than, man. It’s insanity!

Dogs can be lots of fun and great companions, as well as a tool. They are not created in the image of God nor where they given the gift of salvation. Christ did not die on the Cross for a dog, especially one that can lay in an MRI machine for 7 minutes….without moving.

And they do it in a way that is similar to how it is done in the human brain,” he said, adding that the research was unique because how animals process human speech has not been analyzed this way elsewhere. (emboldening added)<<<Read More>>>

*Editor’s Note* – The following study should come as no surprise to those with knowledge and an honest approach to scientific wolf study. Hybridization between canine species is something that happens in nature, but is exceptionally enhanced by several events, one of which is, of course, human intervention and manipulation. Wolves with the least amount of hybridization were found in geographically isolated regions. Expanding populations of wolves increases the likelihood of hybridization and that is magnified when such expansions force wolves into human-settled landscapes and especially where dogs exist and are free ranging – the more dogs the greater the risk of hybridization.

This study confirms what many of us have been saying for several years; that forcing or introducing wolves into areas that are not geographically isolated (to protect the species), promotes hybridization, which in turns leads to the destruction of the wolf gene.

Teddy Roosevelt wrote a great deal about his observances of different species of wild canines and determined that, at that time in history, wolf species were geographically isolated, and, as such, contributed to his and other’s ability to distinguish wolf species, i.e. big wolf and little wolf.

As a society with responsibility to care for our animal species, rational thought should lead us to conclude that we should be working hard to do what we can to keep wolves – those with the least amount of mixed genes – geographically isolated. The worst thing we can do is a continuation of forcing more and more wolves onto the landscape, thus heavily promoting hybridization and a destruction of the species. Or, we can do as some have suggested: simply acknowledging that all wild dogs are a species that should be protected regardless of its genetic composition.

Abstract
Hybridization and introgression can impact the evolution of natural populations. Several wild canid species hybridize in nature, sometimes originating new taxa. However, hybridization with free-ranging dogs is threatening the genetic integrity of grey wolf populations (Canis lupus), or even the survival of endangered species (e.g., the Ethiopian wolf C. simensis). Efficient molecular tools to assess hybridization rates are essential in wolf conservation strategies. We evaluated the power of biparental and uniparental markers (39 autosomal and 4 Y-linked microsatellites, a melanistic deletion at the b-defensin CBD103 gene, the hypervariable domain of the mtDNA control-region) to identify the multilocus admixture patterns in wolf x dog hybrids. We used empirical data from 2 hybrid groups with different histories: 30 presumptive natural hybrids from Italy and 73 Czechoslovakian wolfdogs of known hybrid origin, as well as simulated data. We assessed the efficiency of various marker combinations and reference samples in admixture analyses using 69 dogs of different breeds and 99 wolves from Italy, Balkans and Carpathian Mountains. Results confirmed the occurrence of hybrids in Italy, some of them showing anomalous phenotypic traits and exogenous mtDNA or Y-chromosome introgression. Hybridization was mostly attributable to village dogs and not strictly patrilineal. The melanistic b-defensin deletion was found only in Italian dogs and in putative hybrids. The 24 most divergent microsatellites (largest wolf-dog FST values) were equally or more informative than the entire panel of 39 loci. A smaller panel of 12 microsatellites increased risks to identify false admixed individuals. The frequency of F1 and F2 was lower than backcrosses or introgressed individuals, suggesting hybridization already occurred some
generations in the past, during early phases of wolf expansion from their historical core areas. Empirical and simulated data indicated the identification of the past generation backcrosses is always uncertain, and a larger number of ancestryinformative markers is needed.

Conclusions
The frequency of backcrosses or introgressed individuals (87.5%) between wolf and dog is far higher than the frequency of F1 and F2 hybrids (12.5%), suggesting that hybridization events already occurred in Italy some generations in the past. Probably this happened during the early phases of population re-expansion in Italy, when wolves moved from their historical core areas in the central-southern Apennines and colonized the northern Apennine mountains and lower hills [61]. Theoretical expectations [97] and empirical findings [29,43] indicate that the risk of hybridization is higher in the periphery of wolf distributions in human-dominated landscapes, where wolf populations are less dense, free-ranging dogs are more abundant and early dispersing wolves have more probabilities to meet and mate with dogs. Expanding wolf populations will inevitably spread further into anthropogenically altered areas, where settlement density, infrastructure and the presence of agricultural activities will likely increase traffic
casualties, illegal wolf killings. Consequently high pack turnover can contribute to further raise hybridization frequency. These findings suggest that: 1) expanding wolf populations may experience higher hybridization risks than stable populations; 2) the dynamics of hybridization and introgression will change through time, with a maximum expectancy of hybridization during the early phases of the colonization waves, followed by the subsequent spread of hybrids and the generation of backcrosses within wild populations. The spatial and temporal dynamics of hybridization and backcrossing should be conditioned by landscape features, anthropogenic factors, wolf and feral dog initial
population density and colonization rates. These variables could be modelled using landscape genetic tools to reconstruct maps of hybridization risks, thus providing important resources for the monitoring and management of wolf populations in Europe.

“Because venison accounts for one third of their diet, coyotes may have replaced automobiles as the principle deer predator in the Northeast.”

“…the ancestry of the average eastern coyote is 64% western coyote, 26% wolf, and 10% dog.”

“North America supports two species of gray wolf, a western and an eastern species, and that a third species, the so-called red wolf of the Southeast, is merely a blend of gray wolf and coyote – and the dark coat of some North American wolves may be an artifact of crossbreeding with the dogs that accompanied the first humans into the New World.”

“This canine mélange suggests that the biologic definition of a species, which once leaned heavily on reproductive isolation, is shifting.”<<<Read More>>>

According to an article in the Portland Press Herald, the increase in the number of reported cases of rabies found in animals: “Generally, we see more cases in springs after mild winters,” is what the article says a wildlife biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) says. But with no explanation as to why that would be so and/or if there are other extenuating circumstances that would effect the number of incidences of rabies-infected wild and domestic animals.

As far as the “mild winter” (I’m not sure scientifically as to exactly what a mild winter is as it pertains to the rabies virus in Maine), here’s what might be some helpful information I found relatively easily Online: “…changes in epidemiology are expected to follow global climate change and are most likely to be detected in areas of climate extremes. This is being illustrated in Alaska, as increased viral transmission shifts from red fox to arctic fox populations following warming trends. Increased surveillance is needed to improve predictive models of epidemiology and human risk.”

Because our society is brainwashed, it will respond to such a statement by saying that “global warming” increases rabies. However, the above statement does not say that.

It uses the term “global climate change.” Global means exactly what it says – over the entire globe. Climate change is change. Climate change does not mean only warming. In addition, the epidemiology (the branch of medicine that deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health.) is likely to be detected in “climate extremes.”

Is a “climate extreme” an occasional “mild winter?” Whether the climate changes – extreme – are warming or cooling, the epidemiology of rabies will change. MDIFW says they usually see increases in rabies transmissions following a “mild winter.” Do they necessarily see decreases in rabies transmissions following a “severe winter?”

In addition, it matters not about whether “climate change” extremes or otherwise, effects the incidence of rabies, if there are no host carries of the virus, or that there are increased carriers of the virus. In Science 101, in order to make any conclusions that state that rabies increases after a mild winter, then something ought to remain constant, i.e. the number of mammals that contract, carry and spread the disease. Without this to base conclusions on, we are left with anecdotal guessing.

Because there’s not a lot of science out there on the subject, it seems that it would be safe to say that changes in the conditions on the ground, in any given region, regardless of size, will have an effect on the epidemiology of rabies, not just a mild winter now and again.

Logical thinking might tell us that, in Maine, where a “mild winter” might involve little or no snow, certain mammals that can contract and spread rabies, can more easily move about. With increases in the number of wild animals, like coyotes, wolves, foxes and raccoon, logic should tell us this might increase the incidences of rabies. Combine this with more and more domestic dog ownership, which would also result in more unvaccinated domestic dogs and free roaming dogs, rabies incidents would increase.

It’s a bit unfortunate that more information wasn’t given in this report to explain why MDIFW thinks rabies incidents increase after a mild winter. Perhaps they really don’t know and would only offer conjecture, as I have done. However, it does nobody any good to leave readers assuming global warming causes increases in rabies.

*Editor’s Comment* – A common expression many of us often hear when we are relaying stupidity: “You can’t make this stuff up.” I used to believe that but no longer. It is “made up,” in one sense of its meaning. The stupidity, actually ignorance, is made up. It’s created by man and promoted by man – men blind with ignorance and bred to never question.

Now we have a story of a “pack of coyotes” killing five steers in Wisconsin and it is believed to be fact. Because it was not a “protected” predator, i.e. wolf, no compensation will come to the owner of the livestock.

But here’s the deal. The United States has become an animal perverted society. By that I mean, everyone loves animals more than humans. Everyone has a dog, or six, that they live with, sleep with, cuddle with, eat with, are intimate with, are cared for better than humans, etc. In these people’s tiny, mentally ill minds, all animals are fun and cute and must be protected. Dogs seem to be at the root of the perversion.

Dogs are dogs and any dog, presented with the right set of circumstances – the circumstances of which are easy to create – will copulate with another dog. It matters not whether that dog is feral or domestic, wolf or coyote, wolf or domestic dog, coyote or domestic dog, the act happens. And, the act is happening more and more the more that the perverted citizens of this country continue to think all of these canines are cute and cuddly and need protecting.

It has become so bad, the ignorance and blind perversion that is, that I saw a photograph recently that someone claimed to have taken that showed it to be a “wolf.” The “wolf” was a mongrel with obvious white poodle genes. (This is another example of “made-up” intelligence.)

So long as the perverts want to continue to protect all animals, and in this case all “puppies” then they should be required to pay for their perversion. Any dog, it matters not what year, make or model, tame or wild, that causes damage to anyone for any reason, that person will be compensated in an equitable manner. Licensing of dogs should cost no less that $250.00 per animal to cover the property loss and destruction. This will be adjusted up or down as the need calls.

Where any animal that resembles a dog can be a wolf, no animal the resembles a wolf can be a wolf if it does something bad. These perverts want to protect doggies then let them pay for it. If the price tag gets high enough, maybe they will think…..there I go again thinking they would think.

A coyote attack killed five Black Angus yearling steers, but the farmers who own them said Wednesday they worry wolves could have been involved.

A minimum of 11 genera of parasites, including 7 known or suspected to cause zoonoses, were detected in dogs in 2 northern Canadian communities. Dogs in remote settlements receive minimal veterinary care and may serve as sources and sentinels for parasites in persons and wildlife, and as parasite bridges between wildlife and humans.